According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 5509 are minimal at both the state and local levels. The analysis confirms that there is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state resulting from the implementation of the bill. This is largely because the bill does not mandate the creation of any new state-level programs, enforcement mechanisms, or administrative bodies. Instead, it grants municipalities the authority to act under specific conditions already governed by existing local procedures.

For local governments, the fiscal note concludes that no significant fiscal implications are expected. Although municipalities may incur some minor administrative costs associated with enforcing the provisions of the bill, such as holding hearings or processing certificate suspensions or revocations, these activities would be conducted using procedures already in place for other types of occupancy permits. As such, any additional burden on municipal staff or resources is expected to be marginal and absorbed within existing budgets.

In short, HB 5509 provides a legal mechanism for municipalities to act against hotels suspected of facilitating human trafficking without imposing new or substantial costs on state or local governments. The bill’s reliance on existing legal and administrative frameworks ensures that its fiscal footprint remains negligible.

HB 5509 provides a narrowly tailored but effective tool for municipalities to address human trafficking in commercial lodging establishments. The bill arises from credible concerns detailed by the Texas Human Trafficking Prevention Task Force, which identified Texas as having one of the highest volumes of human trafficking cases in the nation. Hotels, due to their transient nature and relatively limited oversight, are often used by traffickers to exploit victims. Currently, municipalities have few direct legal mechanisms to act against a property suspected of enabling or ignoring trafficking activity, especially in the absence of a completed criminal case. This bill helps address that gap by allowing cities to suspend or revoke a hotel’s certificate of occupancy when both law enforcement and a local criminal court determine probable cause that human trafficking is occurring.

The bill includes important due process safeguards, requiring an affidavit from law enforcement and a court-issued probable cause finding before any municipal enforcement can take place. It also ensures that hotel owners retain the right to a public hearing and to present evidence before a final determination is made. Furthermore, municipalities must follow the same procedures as they do for any other certificate of occupancy suspension or revocation, reinforcing procedural fairness. Importantly, the bill clarifies that it does not create a private cause of action, limiting the risk of civil litigation for property owners and local governments.

The Legislative Budget Board found that the bill poses no fiscal implications to the state and no significant impact on local governments. Given its targeted design, respect for property and due process rights, and strong alignment with public safety objectives, HB 5509 represents a responsible expansion of municipal authority in the fight against human trafficking. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 5509.

• Individual Liberty: At its core, the bill aims to protect individuals, especially vulnerable trafficking victims, from one of the most extreme forms of liberty deprivation: forced labor, coercion, and exploitation. By allowing swift municipal action against establishments that are credibly linked to trafficking activity, the bill directly supports the liberty and dignity of those individuals. It does so in a manner that respects constitutional protections, requiring both a law enforcement affidavit and a court's finding of probable cause before municipal enforcement can proceed.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal and commercial responsibility by making clear that hotel owners and operators can face consequences, not for mere suspicion, but for credible and judicially reviewed evidence of trafficking occurring on their premises. While it does not impose strict liability or civil penalties, it encourages proprietors to take reasonable steps to ensure their properties are not being used for criminal activity. This incentivizes greater diligence and community accountability in the hospitality industry.
• Free Enterprise: The bill is narrowly tailored to avoid undue interference with lawful businesses. It does not regulate the hotel industry broadly, impose new operational mandates, or create licensing hurdles. Instead, it offers municipalities a targeted tool that applies only in situations involving serious, court-recognized criminal activity. The inclusion of procedural safeguards, such as the right to a public hearing, preserves the interests of business owners while ensuring that public safety can be prioritized without compromising economic freedom.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill authorizes a temporary restriction on the use of property through suspension or revocation of a certificate of occupancy, it includes clear due process requirements. The requirement for judicial involvement, consistency with other land-use procedures, and the opportunity for a public hearing ensure that property rights are not arbitrarily infringed. These measures maintain constitutional protections while allowing for reasonable regulation in the public interest.
• Limited Government: The bill embodies the principle of limited government by structuring enforcement within existing municipal frameworks and by explicitly stating that it does not create a new private cause of action. It does not expand state authority or create a new bureaucracy but instead enables local governments to act where there is a clearly defined public safety need. This devolution of authority, with built-in checks, respects the subsidiarity inherent in limited government theory.